I may be wrong, but I think that the point of topseed’s argument is that the time off didn’t need to be communicated. Tomlin could have chosen to stay silent, or even slyly make references to starters playing to compete for the better seed, just to keep the Bills off balance and potentially force them to compete in their game for a better position. Why publicly admit a strategy to rest players when you don’t need to do that? It’s similar to announcing a scheduled time and place to attack an enemy, or withdraw from a theater of combat on such schedule, in wartime. Strategically, if genuine, it’s not a good idea. The only reason such an admission might ever be a good idea would be to throw the enemy off, and to then do something different in the hopes of achieving surprise.
Clearly the second case isn’t in effect here, as the Steelers have little to gain and much to lose by playing starters against the covid infested Browns (which, I think, is the way the NFL ends up screwing the Steelers the most by forcing the game to go forward and risking a subsequent covid outbreak for the Steelers, in response to the other thread). Personally, I don’t think it matters much which seed either team gets, as so much is in doubt in terms of team performances this week and the resulting seeding for all the teams in play, even if all starters were available and playing. That said, I appreciate topseed’s line of thought. There should be plenty of room here for opinions we don’t agree with; that’s what makes life interesting. Our record of postseason underachievement over the past decade definitely doesn’t point to settled science on strategic or tactical decision making.
At the end of the day, the Steelers need to beat whomever is put in front of them, which may be the Ravens, then the Bills, then the Chiefs, to get a ticket to the big dance. An even more important coaching analysis of Tomlin can be done when that path comes to its natural conclusion.
